Can you show me PICTURES of sea level rise?

[RollingThunder]

One of the latest studies shows sea levels rising even faster.

Rising Sea Level Tied to Faster Melt
The Wall Street Journal
June 2, 2013
(excerpts)
Accelerated melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers was the driving factor behind a rise in the global sea level of 16.8 millimeters, or about two-thirds of an inch, between 2005 and 2011, according to a study published Sunday in Nature Geoscience. The findings are consistent with observed longer-term trends, but the study encompasses only a few years of observations, limiting its conclusions, scientists said. The study, funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, does resolve long-standing discrepancies that arose from different methods of measuring sea levels. Scientists want to establish how much of the sea-level change relates to increased melt water, and how much relates to the water expanding as it warms up. Previous calculations indicated that melting might contribute about half of the increase. The latest study concludes that for the period 2005-2011 the contribution was closer to 75%. "There was an increase in the melting rate in Greenland starting in 2005 and that is probably the underlying story why" a larger quantity of melt water has poured into the oceans in recent years, said Clark R. Wilson, geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin and co-author of the study.

Data from the past two decades suggest a sea level increase of about 3.1 millimeters per year. Shorter-term snapshots—such as the annual sea level rise of 2.4 millimeters reported in the latest study—can fall slightly below or above that average. Scientists estimate the overall change in sea level by using satellite-mounted radar that measures the height of the sea surface. Alternatively, they can add up two separately calculated components—the increased mass of water from melting and other sources, and the increased thermal expansion of the ocean. To measure the thermal expansion of the oceans, data are collected from the Argo Project, which consists of about 3,500 torpedo-like devices that zoom around in the ocean measuring temperature and salinity. Meanwhile, NASA's satellite-based GRACE mission measures the gravity field—the varying distribution of mass—across the surface of the earth. Water and air move around from month to month, altering the distribution of mass. By measuring these changes, GRACE can get a fix on how much water mass is being added to the oceans each year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh OK we can only show you the sea level rise in the AGW models

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Stephanie]

Oh OK we can only show you the sea level rise in the AGW models

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

hey, the thunder post a few links to some study and HE KNOWs it ALL..don't ya know?

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no reason at all to believe that the release of 6,700 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emmissions per year should have any effect whatsoever on our climate, just like there is no reason why one would expect one's lawn to die if you were to cover it with a black plastic sheet. What a silly notion! It is all an Al Gore conspiracy, because he is still piissed about losing his election...

Why would 6.7B Tons (actually 30Gtons of CO2, you are repeating the misleading equiv weight of Carbon, not CO2) of man-made CO2 matter when the land and sea surface are giving off and recieving over 700Gtons of CO2 per year WITHOUT MAN !!!

It's well accepted and established among warmers and skeptics alike, that a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm accounts for 1.1DegC of warming from the CO2 EFFECT ALONE.

Thats roughly the time period from 1960 to 2040. Everything else about AGWarming theory is speculation.. All of those multipliers and accelerators of the climate is what folks are skeptical about.. Big diff between 3 or 4 degC over a few decades according to IPCC and 1.1DegC for nearly a century.

Once again, we see a lie created by telling a half truth. Yes, the land and sea emitts that much CO2. And also absorbs that much CO2. The increase that we are seeing in the amount of CO2 and CH4 is almost entirely from anthropogenic sources.

We have gone from 280 ppm of CO2 to 400 ppm. And from about 700 ppb of CH4 to over 1800 ppb of CH4. 1 ppm of CH4 in the short term is equivelent to over 100 ppm of CO2.

Now all you half wits pointing out how small the fraction of atmospheric gases that the GHGs represent, why don't you just ingest one gram of potassium cyanide. After all, that is such a small amount compared to your body weight that it cannot possibly affect you, correct?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh OK we can only show you the sea level rise in the AGW models

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

hey, the thunder post a few links to some study and HE KNOWs it ALL..don't ya know?

Well, he posts information, and you silly fruitloops post flap-yap.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Number of lab experiments showing how an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm causes global warming climate change is still zero

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ernie S.]

Can you show me PICTURES of sea level rise? Like one area between a earlier date and today.

I want to see this with my own eyes...This is the best way to bring a point across.

Here's what Hall's Harbor in Nova Scotia used to look like.

Here's what it looks like now:

 

[Ernie S.]

Large font contributes to global warming.

 

[RollingThunder]

Number of lab experiments showing how an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is still zero

Number of times CrazyFruitcake has posted anything that isn't meaningless and extremely retarded is still zero.

 

[SSDD]

Number of lab experiments showing how an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is still zero

Number of times CrazyFruitcake has posted anything that isn't meaningless and extremely retarded is still zero.

The fact remains that there isn't a single bit of hard, observed, empirical evidence that proves, or even strongly suggests that an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 400 can cause an increase in global temperature.

 

[Mushroom]

Now in order for you to defend your position, you have to beleive there is an internantional conspiracy among scientists from every nation and political system on the planet. Pretty much puts you people in the little tin hat leugue.

Did I say a single word about conspiracy? Did I make that claim at all?

No, I did not think so, so kindly do not put words into my mouth.

And of course, every learned person in Europe also believed that the Universe revolved around the Earth, and there was even a well known trial to prove that was so. Complete with persecution for anybody who dared to speak out in opposition.

The consensus is not as universal as you would like to believe, because in 98% of the polls in regards to climate change are normally stacked.

"Do you believe that the climate is getting warmer?"

Well yea, I do actually. So I would say "yes" and boom, I am in magically on the side of the "Global Warming" crowd, if I actually believe in their theories or not.

I do not think it is a conspiracy, just that it is a hysteria driven movement that relies more on belief then facts. It is simply the newest pseudo-science fad, and there have been a great many of them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's the thing that you deniers like to do: over simplify the argument.

Yes, the Earth's climate has changed from hotter to colder, back and forth, over the eons (if you even believe the Earth is older than 10k years). Everyone understands that. It has been growing warmer since the last major ice age with some colder fluctuations. That's natural. No one of any geological history education disputes such facts.


Here's the thing. It has accelerated greatly since the industrial revolution. And that's the problem. Animal and plantlife, because of the rapidly changing climate, don't have as much of an opportunity to adapt. That could cause a major extinction event, especially if that life is something which is part of the oxygen or carbon cycles, i.e. rainforests or algae. And it could also dramatically effect human populations in equatorial and tropical climes and around coastlines. Not to mention human populations everywhere because of flooding, extreme droughts, etc.

Climate change or global warming wouldn't be a big deal if it were occurring on a natural timescale, but because it is happening at an accelerated pace, it could have dramatice or even catastophic implications for all life on the planet.

So, because the vast majority of the data points to an accelerated waming climate the vast majority of climatologists think that accelerated global warming seems to be happening. Not all of the data supports it, and not all climatologists believe it - but most do. And most scientists do. And all major governments do and institutions do. So either there is a vast global conspiracy to fool everyone into acting to slow global warming for some vague, nebulous reason (so that solar and alternative energy companies and green companies with all their money and power can maintain their grip on civilization) or those with money and power already (i.e. oil and gas companies owned by people like the Koch Bros. and BP) are attempting to undermine the science, the conclusions that the evidence logically leads to, and the ugent message that we need to change our ways in order to maintain their near monopoly on energy - the most essential of all commodities to modern civilization. We've seen this before with the tobacco companies in the 50s and early 60s

Which seems more likely to you?

Seems more likely that the AGW Cult has been fudging the data.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. " -- IPCC

Who cares what the IPCC says. Who care what the environmentalists say. What does the data tell you and what does it means for civilization and the environment? What could happen if we as a species ignore the science?

The data tells me that CO2 lags temperature changes

The data tells me that the amount of CO2 released by mankind is less than a rounding error and has no demonstrable effect on Earth's climate whatsoever

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, that's your retarded denier cult myth but the scientific evidence says otherwise so who really cares about your nutty denial of reality?

That "nutty denial" is the official NOAA tide gauge report for Key West in the last century.

Who is being the retarded cult myth denier here?? Eh TinkerBelle?

Well, let's see, I'm denying your retarded denier cult myths and you're retardedly denying reality.

Here's what NOAA actually says

Sea level is rising at an increasing rate

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

See now this is EXACTLY how your AGW handlers get you in trouble.. By using weasel words and inferring stuff that's not in evidence.. Ever LOOK at the satellite altimetry record since 1992?? Bet you haven't because NOAA's been telling you what COULD or MIGHT be happening.. Let's talk a look...

Now you tell me TinkerBelle -- WHERE IS THAT ACCELERATED SLevel rise in the SATELLITE record.. Essentially NOAA is playing fast and loose with their

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

But there is NO INCREASED RATE over the 20 years of satellite data is there? Anyone??

And there wasn't any increased rate in the tide gauge at Key West either -- was there Princess?

Well the only way NOAA gets to PROPAGATE THAT LIE is to neglect to tell folks that no actual accelerated slevel rise shows up the data --- it's just that the satellite data has a different LINEAR trend line than the tide gauges..

Your policy driven cult are chronic liars. Leading the public with "may bez" and COULD beZ.
There is no acceleration in EITHER the tidal gauge readings or the sat record.

In this case, the sat record is probably suspect because the inherents OFFSETS and BIAS are in the 10 to 30mm range.. FAR ABOVE the tidal gauges. Even a satellite has some mighty orbital uncertainties when you're measuring a FRACTION OF AN INCH..

http://imos.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/shared/IMOS%20General/BWCN/watson.pdf

Eventually, some smart cookie will explain the different trend lines. But cutting and pasting those trends lines TOGETHER does NOT indicate an acceleration of SLevel rise..

 

[RollingThunder]

That "nutty denial" is the official NOAA tide gauge report for Key West in the last century.

Who is being the retarded cult myth denier here?? Eh TinkerBelle?

Well, let's see, I'm denying your retarded denier cult myths and you're retardedly denying reality.

Here's what NOAA actually says

Sea level is rising at an increasing rate

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

See now this is EXACTLY how your AGW handlers get you in trouble.. By using weasel words and inferring stuff that's not in evidence.. Ever LOOK at the satellite altimetry record since 1992?? Bet you haven't because NOAA's been telling you what COULD or MIGHT be happening.. Let's talk a look...

Now you tell me TinkerBelle -- .. Essentially NOAA is playing fast and loose with their

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

But there is NO INCREASED RATE over the 20 years of satellite data is there? Anyone??

Sometimes I forget how really, really stupid you are, fecalbrain. But then you post something like this to remind me. LOL.

What did NOAA say here that you're obviously too stupid to understand?
"Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year."

Sea level was observed to be rising at about 1.5mm/year or so since 1900 but since 1992 when satellite altimetry records began, they started observing a faster rise of about 3mm/year. You show a graph that starts in 1992 after the rate increased and ask: "WHERE IS THAT ACCELERATED SLevel rise in the SATELLITE record?". Nitwit. They weren't claiming that the satellite record showed an increase since it began until now but rather that it shows an increase since it began over what had been previously observed. Here is the sea level graph since 1880.

The increase in the rate of rise isn't too visually obvious as yet but do try to notice that from where it starts in 1880, it rises roughly just a bit over 2 inches over the next five decades (1880 to 1930). Notice that starting in 1980, it rises almost 4 inches in just three decades. There is the accelerated sea level rise, moron. Really serious acceleration has not yet set in so the rate increase isn't as obvious to the eye as it will be in the next four decades. Many climate scientists are now projecting a possible 4 to 6 foot rise in sea levels by the end of the century.

From the journal Science in 2008, “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” concludes: “On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.” Two meters is more than six and a half feet, BTW.

A study in Nature Geoscience in 2007, “High Rates of Sea-level Rise During the Last Interglacial Period” looked at the last interglacial period (the Eemian, about 120,000 years ago) — the last time the planet was as warm as it soon will be again. Seas rose 1.6 meters (5 feet) per century “when the global mean temperature was 2 °C higher than today”, and that's a lesser temperature rise than where we are headed in the second half of this century under current carbon emission rates.

You still imagine that you're smarter than all of the scientists working on this who say that the rate of sea level rise has increased or you just imagine that all of those scientists everywhere are all in on a big conspiracy to deceive us about the facts of the matter. Either way, it just shows that you're a complete moron.

 

[Indofred]

There is absolutely no point bothering with this thread.
There is a clear connection to CO2 levels and temp but the anti climate change bunch simple rubbish it with stupid posts about font size.

Such people are acting like children or retarded fools.

 

[SSDD]

There is absolutely no point bothering with this thread.
There is a clear connection to CO2 levels and temp but the anti climate change bunch simple rubbish it with stupid posts about font size.

Such people are acting like children or retarded fools.

Really? Let's see some clear evidence that proves a connection rather than just correlation.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, let's see, I'm denying your retarded denier cult myths and you're retardedly denying reality.

Here's what NOAA actually says

Sea level is rising at an increasing rate

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

See now this is EXACTLY how your AGW handlers get you in trouble.. By using weasel words and inferring stuff that's not in evidence.. Ever LOOK at the satellite altimetry record since 1992?? Bet you haven't because NOAA's been telling you what COULD or MIGHT be happening.. Let's talk a look...

Now you tell me TinkerBelle -- .. Essentially NOAA is playing fast and loose with their

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

But there is NO INCREASED RATE over the 20 years of satellite data is there? Anyone??

Sometimes I forget how really, really stupid you are, fecalbrain. But then you post something like this to remind me. LOL.

What did NOAA say here that you're obviously too stupid to understand?
"Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year."

Sea level was observed to be rising at about 1.5mm/year or so since 1900 but since 1992 when satellite altimetry records began, they started observing a faster rise of about 3mm/year. You show a graph that starts in 1992 after the rate increased and ask: "WHERE IS THAT ACCELERATED SLevel rise in the SATELLITE record?". Nitwit. They weren't claiming that the satellite record showed an increase since it began until now but rather that it shows an increase since it began over what had been previously observed. Here is the sea level graph since 1880.

You still imagine that you're smarter than all of the scientists working on this who say that the rate of sea level rise has increased or you just imagine that all of those scientists everywhere are all in on a big conspiracy to deceive us about the facts of the matter. Either way, it just shows that you're a complete moron.

Where you get into trouble is when you start speaking and thinking for YOURSELF -- rather than searching the internet for ANYTHING that confirms your preconceived dreams and fantasies..

There is no acceleration in the tidal gauge record... There is no acceleration in the satellite record. The Sea Level record did not JUMP instantaneously from a rate of 2.2mm/yr to 3.2mm/yr just because we launched a measurement pkg into space ! There exists a DISAGREEMENT in the VERY LINEAR rate of increase..

A scientist wouldn't immediately count that 0.04 in/yr discrepancy as anything other than a measurement conflict. UNLESS --- you want to get people lather-up about a diff in rate of 0.04in/yr and tell them -- "IT MAY BE global warming".

You've got a satellite orbiting hundreds of miles above the earth measuring it's altitude as best it can to about 20mm. Or 100 times LESS accurate than the sea level diff that we're arguing about. By subtracting known biases and offsets and applying LOTS of filtering, they can maybe get a trend line out that. HOWEVER -- the Occams reaction would be that the satellite TRUE position could be changing due to it's guidance and control system drifting BY A FUCKING MM or so a year -- or MORE LIKELY -- there is an oscillator timing reference for the radar package that is changing by something like 2ppm because of temperature differentials OR AGING...

I could invoke what what I did for Shuttle guidance support while I was at Kennedy Space Center -- but frankly, I didn't work on altimetry pkgs. But I am familiar with their specifications. And for NOAA to use YOU and other useful idiots to INFER that this is an ACTUAL physical change is dishonest and typical of the propaganda flowing from the AGW infrastructure..

The NOAA quote above is a CLEAR INDICTMENT of how they are fueling your fears... Based on NOTHING that can be seen in ANY type of record of sea level rise.

 

[IanC]

when it comes to global warming you always need to notice which way the story is being told. if it is a local and short term event then you have to look at the global and long term numbers. eg. extreme weather, which is neither extreme nor unusual when historical trends are examined.

with satellite altimetry we are told that the global trend jumps from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr at the exact moment that the satellites started measuring. a rather large coincidence. what happens if we look at the finer grain of the measurements? there are many areas in open ocean where the 20 year trend is steeply rising, but right next to areas that are steeply dipping! what's up with that?

in the graph southeast asia shows the greatest rise but it is also the most seismically active region in the world. is there a problem with removing confounding effects here? is it really sea level rise or is it something else?

the satellites are calibrated to certain tide gauges. it would be nice to know what SLR that cohort of gauges show compared to the overall tide gauge history. no conspiracy theory, Im just interested.

in the mid-to-late 2000's SLR slowed and reversed. during this time a new calculation methodology was introduced which included the GIA adjustment. this direct fudge not only clouds the actual sea level height but it leads to ridiculous results if you carry it back in time before the 1990's start of altimetry. you don't see them subtracting GIA from past data, do you?

all in all I am excited about this new technology and I am sure it will be very useful for many things but I don't think all of the bugs have been worked out yet. whether the enormously difficult task of getting results out of the data has been skewed towards expected AGW trends is something that only time will tell. eg. Antarctica has already shown large scale backs of ice mass loss as the time period has lengthened.

 

[flacaltenn]

when it comes to global warming you always need to notice which way the story is being told. if it is a local and short term event then you have to look at the global and long term numbers. eg. extreme weather, which is neither extreme nor unusual when historical trends are examined.

with satellite altimetry we are told that the global trend jumps from 2mm/yr to 3mm/yr at the exact moment that the satellites started measuring. a rather large coincidence. what happens if we look at the finer grain of the measurements? there are many areas in open ocean where the 20 year trend is steeply rising, but right next to areas that are steeply dipping! what's up with that?

in the graph southeast asia shows the greatest rise but it is also the most seismically active region in the world. is there a problem with removing confounding effects here? is it really sea level rise or is it something else?

the satellites are calibrated to certain tide gauges. it would be nice to know what SLR that cohort of gauges show compared to the overall tide gauge history. no conspiracy theory, Im just interested.

in the mid-to-late 2000's SLR slowed and reversed. during this time a new calculation methodology was introduced which included the GIA adjustment. this direct fudge not only clouds the actual sea level height but it leads to ridiculous results if you carry it back in time before the 1990's start of altimetry. you don't see them subtracting GIA from past data, do you?

all in all I am excited about this new technology and I am sure it will be very useful for many things but I don't think all of the bugs have been worked out yet. whether the enormously difficult task of getting results out of the data has been skewed towards expected AGW trends is something that only time will tell. eg. Antarctica has already shown large scale backs of ice mass loss as the time period has lengthened.

This is another instance where the desire to create a MEAN GLOBAL number leaves us with more uncertainty than it's worth.. MEAN GLOBAL numbers are for public consumption and the public has no idea whether they are based on snail shell sizes or satellites.

It looks like to me, that the historical tidal record was underreporting the rate of rise because of the coastal distributions of the gauges.

But it could also be ----- a systemic measurement bias in the satellite record even tho multiple satellite pkgs have been "normed" to agree with one other. The overall inherent errors in our best sat altimeters are in the order of CMeters. Ten times the numbers we're looking for in sea level rise.

http://geodesy.geology.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/Shum_GJI_Alt_95LR.pdf

See table 2 in the paper above.. So I don't doubt you can "fish out" a 3.0mm change over a year, but NOT WITHOUT the possibility of introducing biases in the signal processing..

It's the same argument I've been making for satellite measurements of surface temp, solar irradiance and now sea level.. We only have 25 years of sat data -- In many instances only 20 years of GOOD data --- and that's far too short to be leaping to climate conclusions..